The problem with trying to keep up with all the examples of Barack Obama's far-left leanings is that I get the material for 3 or 4 posts for every one that I get to write...well, it's a long way to November. The Obamafiles folder in my email will get cleaned out eventually, no need to blow it all in February.

Anyway, nothing says "Change" like reviving the Left's defense policy demands as of 1983: Nuclear Freeze, opposing "the weaponization of space," fetishization of arms control talks with the Soviets Russia. Next he will be talking about Grenada and Pershing missiles. Still, it is nice to see Obama pushing ideas that aren't from the 1970s, I guess... where's Zell Miller when you need him?

SECOND UPDATE:Moe Lane notes that Obama's proposed "global ban on the production of fissile material" would be the death knell of nuclear power, which would cripple current energy production in countries like France, Japan and South Korea and require them to return to carbon-based feuls for power. In Obama's defense, he probably doesn't understand the issue well enough to know that.

UPDATE: Since we are on the subject of Obama and missile defense, here's more of what he has said on the subject (below the fold):

The Bush Administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes. The Bush Administration has also done a poor job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile defense system that has major implications for all of them. We must not allow this issue to divide "new Europe" and "old Europe," as the Bush Administration tried to do over Iraq."

This is basically the Carl Levin line, and Levin has been trying to kill missile defense for decades. Of course, the video's line about weaponizing space pretty much seals the deal as far as removing any ambiguity about his ideological hostility to SDI.

One thing you gotta love about Obama over Hillary is that he proclaims his "liberalness" instead of trying to hide it. It's only when liberals hide their ideas before an election that they ever get elected.

Posted by: Lee at
February 27, 2008 12:29 PM

Of course, you will recall that there is some history behind why Democrats started running away from forthright liberalism in the first place, the 1972 and 1984 elections being the most dramatic examples. Obama seems to be trying the Dukakis gambit of staking out liberal positions and then just arguing that they don't add up to the liberal label. If McCain plays his cards right, that should not be any more successful than it was for Dukakis. There are plenty of examples of stuff in his record in Illinois that will play as well with the general electorate as prison furloughs and the Pledge of Allegiance did, and Obama is running on probably the largest openly declared tax hike proposal from a national candidate since Mondale combined with the most dovish foreign policy platform since McGovern. None of those things has a notable history of success.

I'm telling you, my job requires me to meet a lot of people and inevitably politics come up. I run into people literally everyday who think Obama is a centrist. I know it sounds crazy, but there is a wide perception out there among independents--who tend to be less political and not as attentive--who don't think of him as a liberal. We and McCain have a lot of educating to do.

Posted by: alex at
February 27, 2008 1:08 PM

The irony, of course, is that a lot of conservatives think that McCain is moderate and even liberal. When in fact McCain is a run of the mill right-winger.

Posted by: Steve at
February 27, 2008 1:55 PM

Ok, all you Wankers, er, I mean Crankers, still clinging to such fantasies as GWB was a great President and that our government did not torture or commit war crimes, explain this:

iIn an iterview with Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo's military commissions, Col. Davis said:

"When asked if he thought the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial, Davis provided the following account of an August 2005 meeting he had with Pentagon general counsel William Haynes--the man who now oversees the tribunal process for the Defense Department.

"[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time," recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, which had lent great credibility to the proceedings.

"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals. We've got to have convictions.'"

Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007, just hours after he was informed that Haynes had been put above him in the commissions' chain of command. "Everyone has opinions," Davis says. "But when he was put above me, his opinions became orders.""

Posted by: Magrooder at
February 27, 2008 7:42 PM

The Colonel thinks the General's wrong? You don't say...

Posted by: seamus at
February 28, 2008 8:54 AM

Or, in the case, the civilian. Same principle, of course. Amplified, even.

Posted by: seamus at
February 28, 2008 8:59 AM

Or, in the case, the civilian. Same principle of course. Amplified, even.

Posted by: seamus at
February 28, 2008 8:59 AM

Seamus,

Is that a joke? The point is not that the military disagrees with the civilian, though straight to hell with anyone who dares disagree with Petraeus. The point is that the Defense Department is putting out show trials -- not an fair review of guilt or innocense. Try 'em and hang 'em, I guess.

Posted by: Magrooder at
February 28, 2008 8:39 PM

No joke. The point is that a lone Colonel disagreeing w/ the higher-ups, regardless of the issue, is not news to anyone w/ a military background, and hardly something from which to draw conclusions. It says v/ little about the merits of the issue.

Posted by: seamus at
February 29, 2008 9:28 AM

Seamus,

You still miss the point. I added the colonel so you could not simply dismiss the pointy-headed liberal. The point is that the DoD "trials' are designed to ensure a particualr outcome because an acquittal would embarass the war criminals currently running our government

Posted by: Magrooder at
March 1, 2008 10:50 PM

Seamus,

You still miss the point. I added the colonel so you could not simply dismiss the pointy-headed liberal. The point is that the DoD "trials' are designed to ensure a particualr outcome because an acquittal would embarass the war criminals currently running our government

Posted by: Magrooder at
March 1, 2008 10:50 PM

Apparently, those running our government don't even need a "trial" before they are labeled.

Due process for them is satisfied when a lone Colonel seems to confirm a pointy headed liberal's assumption.